1
|
Yan N, Wu C, Zhou Y, Liao W, Liu J, Pu Y. A linear energy transfer distributions computation method for inhomogeneous medium by using the water equivalent ratio approximation. RADIATION PROTECTION DOSIMETRY 2024; 200:325-332. [PMID: 37850312 DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncad273] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2023] [Revised: 07/26/2023] [Accepted: 09/19/2023] [Indexed: 10/19/2023]
Abstract
Dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LET), LETd is widely used in proton therapy. Compared with analytical models, Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are more accurate in obtaining LETd distributions, but they are time-consuming. This study used the 3D LETd distributions of proton beam spots in water by MC simulations as a benchmark data set. Subsequently, by combining the water equivalent ratio of various human tissues, the 3D LETd distributions of clinical cases could be quickly obtained. Our method was applied to a single spot of 160 MeV proton beam in a water-bone phantom and a pelvic case. We also computed the 3D LETd distributions for multiple proton beam spots in the pelvic case and a lung case. The results of our method were compared with the results of MC simulations, demonstrating that our method can rapidly provide 3D LETd distributions of clinical cases with acceptable differences from MC simulations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nan Yan
- Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, China
- University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
| | - Chao Wu
- Medical Equipment Innovation Research Center, West China School of Medicine, Med+X Center for Manufacturing, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
| | - Yun Zhou
- Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, China
- University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
| | - Wentao Liao
- Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, China
- University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
| | - Junya Liu
- Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, China
- University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
| | - Yuehu Pu
- Medical Equipment Innovation Research Center, West China School of Medicine, Med+X Center for Manufacturing, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Botnariuc D, Court S, Lourenço A, Gosling A, Royle G, Hussein M, Rompokos V, Veiga C. Evaluation of monte carlo to support commissioning of the treatment planning system of new pencil beam scanning proton therapy facilities. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:045027. [PMID: 38052092 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad1272] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2023] [Accepted: 12/05/2023] [Indexed: 12/07/2023]
Abstract
Objective. To demonstrate the potential of Monte Carlo (MC) to support the resource-intensive measurements that comprise the commissioning of the treatment planning system (TPS) of new proton therapy facilities.Approach. Beam models of a pencil beam scanning system (Varian ProBeam) were developed in GATE (v8.2), Eclipse proton convolution superposition algorithm (v16.1, Varian Medical Systems) and RayStation MC (v12.0.100.0, RaySearch Laboratories), using the beam commissioning data. All models were first benchmarked against the same commissioning data and validated on seven spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) plans. Then, we explored the use of MC to optimise dose calculation parameters, fully understand the performance and limitations of TPS in homogeneous fields and support the development of patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) processes. We compared the dose calculations of the TPSs against measurements (DDTPSvs.Meas.) or GATE (DDTPSvs.GATE) for an extensive set of plans of varying complexity. This included homogeneous plans with varying field-size, range, width, and range-shifters (RSs) (n= 46) and PSQA plans for different anatomical sites (n= 11).Main results. The three beam models showed good agreement against the commissioning data, and dose differences of 3.5% and 5% were found for SOBP plans without and with RSs, respectively. DDTPSvs.Meas.and DDTPSvs.GATEwere correlated in most scenarios. In homogeneous fields the Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.92 and 0.68 for Eclipse and RayStation, respectively. The standard deviation of the differences between GATE and measurements (±0.5% for homogeneous and ±0.8% for PSQA plans) was applied as tolerance when comparing TPSs with GATE. 72% and 60% of the plans were within the GATE predicted dose difference for both TPSs, for homogeneous and PSQA cases, respectively.Significance. Developing and validating a MC beam model early on into the commissioning of new proton therapy facilities can support the validation of the TPS and facilitate comprehensive investigation of its capabilities and limitations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Botnariuc
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
- Metrology for Medical Physics Centre, National Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington, TW11 0LW, United Kingdom
| | - S Court
- Radiotherapy Physics Services, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 250 Euston Road, London, NW1 2PG, United Kingdom
| | - A Lourenço
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
- Metrology for Medical Physics Centre, National Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington, TW11 0LW, United Kingdom
| | - A Gosling
- Radiotherapy Physics Services, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 250 Euston Road, London, NW1 2PG, United Kingdom
| | - G Royle
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
| | - M Hussein
- Metrology for Medical Physics Centre, National Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington, TW11 0LW, United Kingdom
| | - V Rompokos
- Radiotherapy Physics Services, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 250 Euston Road, London, NW1 2PG, United Kingdom
| | - C Veiga
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Taasti VT, Decabooter E, Eekers D, Compter I, Rinaldi I, Bogowicz M, van der Maas T, Kneepkens E, Schiffelers J, Stultiens C, Hendrix N, Pijls M, Emmah R, Fonseca GP, Unipan M, van Elmpt W. Clinical benefit of range uncertainty reduction in proton treatment planning based on dual-energy CT for neuro-oncological patients. Br J Radiol 2023; 96:20230110. [PMID: 37493227 PMCID: PMC10461272 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20230110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2023] [Revised: 06/01/2023] [Accepted: 06/14/2023] [Indexed: 07/27/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Several studies have shown that dual-energy CT (DECT) can lead to improved accuracy for proton range estimation. This study investigated the clinical benefit of reduced range uncertainty, enabled by DECT, in robust optimisation for neuro-oncological patients. METHODS DECT scans for 27 neuro-oncological patients were included. Commercial software was applied to create stopping-power ratio (SPR) maps based on the DECT scan. Two plans were robustly optimised on the SPR map, keeping the beam and plan settings identical to the clinical plan. One plan was robustly optimised and evaluated with a range uncertainty of 3% (as used clinically; denoted 3%-plan); the second plan applied a range uncertainty of 2% (2%-plan). Both plans were clinical acceptable and optimal. The dose-volume histogram parameters were compared between the two plans. Two experienced neuro-radiation oncologists determined the relevant dose difference for each organ-at-risk (OAR). Moreover, the OAR toxicity levels were assessed. RESULTS For 24 patients, a dose reduction >0.5/1 Gy (relevant dose difference depending on the OAR) was seen in one or more OARs for the 2%-plan; e.g. for brainstem D0.03cc in 10 patients, and hippocampus D40% in 6 patients. Furthermore, 12 patients had a reduction in toxicity level for one or two OARs, showing a clear benefit for the patient. CONCLUSION Robust optimisation with reduced range uncertainty allows for reduction of OAR toxicity, providing a rationale for clinical implementation. Based on these results, we have clinically introduced DECT-based proton treatment planning for neuro-oncological patients, accompanied with a reduced range uncertainty of 2%. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE This study shows the clinical benefit of range uncertainty reduction from 3% to 2% in robustly optimised proton plans. A dose reduction to one or more OARs was seen for 89% of the patients, and 44% of the patients had an expected toxicity level decrease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vicki Trier Taasti
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Esther Decabooter
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Daniëlle Eekers
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Inge Compter
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Ilaria Rinaldi
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Marta Bogowicz
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Tim van der Maas
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Esther Kneepkens
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Jacqueline Schiffelers
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Cissy Stultiens
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Nicole Hendrix
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Mirthe Pijls
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Rik Emmah
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Gabriel Paiva Fonseca
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Mirko Unipan
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Wouter van Elmpt
- Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW – School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
McIntyre M, Wilson P, Gorayski P, Bezak E. A Systematic Review of LET-Guided Treatment Plan Optimisation in Proton Therapy: Identifying the Current State and Future Needs. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:4268. [PMID: 37686544 PMCID: PMC10486456 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174268] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2023] [Revised: 08/16/2023] [Accepted: 08/17/2023] [Indexed: 09/10/2023] Open
Abstract
The well-known clinical benefits of proton therapy are achieved through higher target-conformality and normal tissue sparing than conventional radiotherapy. However, there is an increased sensitivity to uncertainties in patient motion/setup, proton range and radiobiological effect. Although recent efforts have mitigated some uncertainties, radiobiological effect remains unresolved due to a lack of clinical data for relevant endpoints. Therefore, RBE optimisations may be currently unsuitable for clinical treatment planning. LET optimisation is a novel method that substitutes RBE with LET, shifting LET hotspots outside critical structures. This review outlines the current status of LET optimisation in proton therapy, highlighting knowledge gaps and possible future research. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a search of the MEDLINE® and Scopus databases was performed in July 2023, identifying 70 relevant articles. Generally, LET optimisation methods achieved their treatment objectives; however, clinical benefit is patient-dependent. Inconsistencies in the reported data suggest further testing is required to identify therapeutically favourable methods. We discuss the methods which are suitable for near-future clinical deployment, with fast computation times and compatibility with existing treatment protocols. Although there is some clinical evidence of a correlation between high LET and adverse effects, further developments are needed to inform future patient selection protocols for widespread application of LET optimisation in proton therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa McIntyre
- Allied Health & Human Performance Academic Unit, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
| | - Puthenparampil Wilson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
- UniSA STEM, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
| | - Peter Gorayski
- Allied Health & Human Performance Academic Unit, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
- Australian Bragg Centre for Proton Therapy and Research, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
| | - Eva Bezak
- Allied Health & Human Performance Academic Unit, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
- Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Henthorn NT, Gardner LL, Aitkenhead AH, Rowland BC, Shin J, Smith EAK, Merchant MJ, Mackay RI, Kirkby KJ, Chaudhary P, Prise KM, McMahon SJ, Underwood TSA. Proposing a Clinical Model for RBE Based on Proton Track-End Counts. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 116:916-926. [PMID: 36642109 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.12.056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2022] [Revised: 12/21/2022] [Accepted: 12/29/2022] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE In proton therapy, the clinical application of linear energy transfer (LET) optimization remains contentious, in part because of challenges associated with the definition and calculation of LET and its exact relationship with relative biological effectiveness (RBE) because of large variation in experimental in vitro data. This has raised interest in other metrics with favorable properties for biological optimization, such as the number of proton track ends in a voxel. In this work, we propose a novel model for clinical calculations of RBE, based on proton track end counts. METHODS AND MATERIALS We developed an effective dose concept to translate between the total proton track-end count per unit mass in a voxel and a proton RBE value. Dose, track end, and dose-averaged LET (LETd) distributions were simulated using Monte Carlo models for a series of water phantoms, in vitro radiobiological studies, and patient treatment plans. We evaluated the correlation between track ends and regions of elevated biological effectiveness in comparison to LETd-based models of RBE. RESULTS Track ends were found to correlate with biological effects in in vitro experiments with an accuracy comparable to LETd. In patient simulations, our track end model identified the same biological hotspots as predicted by LETd-based radiobiological models of proton RBE. CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that, for clinical optimization and evaluation, an RBE model based on proton track end counts may match LETd-based models in terms of information provided while also offering superior statistical properties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas T Henthorn
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
| | - Lydia L Gardner
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Adam H Aitkenhead
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Benjamin C Rowland
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Jungwook Shin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Edward A K Smith
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J Merchant
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ranald I Mackay
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Karen J Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Pankaj Chaudhary
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Kevin M Prise
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen J McMahon
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Tracy S A Underwood
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Leo Cancer Care Ltd, Unit 1 Woodbridge House, Chapel Rd, Smallfield, Horley RH6 9NW, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sarrut D, Arbor N, Baudier T, Borys D, Etxebeste A, Fuchs H, Gajewski J, Grevillot L, Jan S, Kagadis GC, Kang HG, Kirov A, Kochebina O, Krzemien W, Lomax A, Papadimitroulas P, Pommranz C, Roncali E, Rucinski A, Winterhalter C, Maigne L. The OpenGATE ecosystem for Monte Carlo simulation in medical physics. Phys Med Biol 2022; 67:10.1088/1361-6560/ac8c83. [PMID: 36001985 PMCID: PMC11149651 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac8c83] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2022] [Accepted: 08/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
This paper reviews the ecosystem of GATE, an open-source Monte Carlo toolkit for medical physics. Based on the shoulders of Geant4, the principal modules (geometry, physics, scorers) are described with brief descriptions of some key concepts (Volume, Actors, Digitizer). The main source code repositories are detailed together with the automated compilation and tests processes (Continuous Integration). We then described how the OpenGATE collaboration managed the collaborative development of about one hundred developers during almost 20 years. The impact of GATE on medical physics and cancer research is then summarized, and examples of a few key applications are given. Finally, future development perspectives are indicated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Sarrut
- Université de Lyon; CREATIS; CNRS UMR5220; Inserm U1294; INSA-Lyon; Université Lyon 1, Léon Bérard cancer center, Lyon, France
| | - Nicolas Arbor
- Université de Strasbourg, IPHC, CNRS, UMR7178, F-67037 Strasbourg, France
| | - Thomas Baudier
- Université de Lyon; CREATIS; CNRS UMR5220; Inserm U1294; INSA-Lyon; Université Lyon 1, Léon Bérard cancer center, Lyon, France
| | - Damian Borys
- Department of Systems Biology and Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Ane Etxebeste
- Université de Lyon; CREATIS; CNRS UMR5220; Inserm U1294; INSA-Lyon; Université Lyon 1, Léon Bérard cancer center, Lyon, France
| | - Hermann Fuchs
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
- Medical University of Vienna, Department of Radiation Oncology, Vienna, Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, A-1090 Wien, Austria
| | - Jan Gajewski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | | | - Sébastien Jan
- Université Paris-Saclay, Inserm, CNRS, CEA, Laboratoire d'Imagerie Biomédicale Multimodale (BioMaps), F-91401 Orsay, France
| | - George C Kagadis
- 3DMI Research Group, Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece
| | - Han Gyu Kang
- National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology (QST), 4-9-1 Anagawa, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8555, Japan
| | - Assen Kirov
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer, New York, NY 10021, United States of America
| | - Olga Kochebina
- Université Paris-Saclay, Inserm, CNRS, CEA, Laboratoire d'Imagerie Biomédicale Multimodale (BioMaps), F-91401 Orsay, France
| | - Wojciech Krzemien
- High Energy Physics Division, National Centre for Nuclear Research, Otwock-Świerk, Poland
- Faculty of Physics, Astronomy and Applied Computer Science, Jagiellonian University, S. Lojasiewicza 11, 30-348 Krakow, Poland
- Centre for Theranostics, Jagiellonian University, Kopernika 40 St, 31 501 Krakow, Poland
| | - Antony Lomax
- Center for Proton Therapy, PSI, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - Christian Pommranz
- Werner Siemens Imaging Center, Department of Preclinical Imaging and Radiopharmacy, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Roentgenweg 13, D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany
- Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Sand 1, D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Emilie Roncali
- University of California Davis, Departments of Biomedical Engineering and Radiology, Davis, CA 95616, United States of America
| | - Antoni Rucinski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | - Carla Winterhalter
- Center for Proton Therapy, PSI, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Lydia Maigne
- Université Clermont Auvergne, Laboratoire de Physique de Clermont, CNRS, UMR 6533, F-63178 Aubière, France
| |
Collapse
|